Occupy Wall Street

We can move on, but that was _never_ the request. Obviously, if a rich person is taxed more, HE will be worse off. The fact that this means absolutely nothing with regard to social fairness, general welfare optimization, or even economic Pareto Superior scenarios still has me scratching my head why you went down this road in the first place.

I'll try one more time, even though I've done it twice and I've already conceded that it was a mistake to bring it up.

Definition of Pareto Superior:A > B iff, ∃ at least one person such that U(A) > U(B) and ∄ no person such that U(A) < U(B)Claim:

Quote:

I would posit that a Pereto Superior outcome would be all kinds of income being taxed the same, and at progressive rates.

Prove me wrong.

Proof:Let A be papadage's proposal and B be the status quo.Robert L. Johnson, CEO of RLJ Equity Partners, LLC, a private equity firm founded in partnership with The Carlyle Group thinks he would be worse off under A than B. I have no reason to doubt that.Or in other words: ∃ at least one person such that U(A) < U(B).∴ A is not > B.QED

Huh? I'm still not getting it, sorry. I accept that this has nothing to do with the optimization with general welfare, so I won't force you to defend that connection, but I'm not even getting it within the context above.

Robert L. Johnson thinks he is worse off under A, but you can't assume that U(A) < U(B) unless you posit that NOBODY ELSE is better off under A, correct? This is what I don't get about the argument. Progressive taxation _shifts_ the tax burden, therefore by definition, the assumption is that U(A) >> U(B) under such a system.

Maybe it's because we have a different idea of that taxation is for, and I certainly don't want to argue against a position you don't hold, so perhaps it would be a good idea for you to state what kind of tax system you support, and what kind of tax system you think would be Pareto Superior (if they aren't the same).

Every economic decision reduces somebody's outcome. It's not a zero sum game, but every allocation has some opportunity costs. Pareto optimization is not a vacuum. Even in the classic guns vs. butter scenario, for every dollar allocated toward guns, a butter manufacturer somewhere is making less money. In economics, there is always a competition for resources. Citing these truisms as violating Pareto principals is wrong, and rather lazy too.

Robert L. Johnson thinks he is worse off under A, but you can't assume that U(A) < U(B) unless you posit that NOBODY ELSE is better off under A, correct? This is what I don't get about the argument. Progressive taxation _shifts_ the tax burden, therefore by definition, the assumption is that U(A) >> U(B) under such a system.

No U is a function for each individual. There is no utility aggregation claim involved.The definition requires that there not exist even a single disadvantaged individual in order for A > B.

N.B. that A is not Pareto superior to B does not imply that B is Pareto superior to A. In fact in most situations involving many people neither will be true.

Maybe it's because we have a different idea of that taxation is for, and I certainly don't want to argue against a position you don't hold, so perhaps it would be a good idea for you to state what kind of tax system you support, and what kind of tax system you think would be Pareto Superior (if they aren't the same).

Right now I'd like to see a higher inflation, which means that we don't need more 'taxation' at all.

In the long run I think a mix of flat taxes on wealth (inflation) and progressive taxes on consumption are the way to go. I would eliminate any and all social engineering from the tax code.

Robert L. Johnson thinks he is worse off under A, but you can't assume that U(A) < U(B) unless you posit that NOBODY ELSE is better off under A, correct? This is what I don't get about the argument. Progressive taxation _shifts_ the tax burden, therefore by definition, the assumption is that U(A) >> U(B) under such a system.

No U is a function for each individual. There is no utility aggregation claim involved.The definition requires that there not exist even a single disadvantaged individual in order for A > B.

N.B. that A is not Pareto superior to B does not imply that B is Pareto superior to A. In fact in most situations involving many people neither will be true.

Ah, so Pareto 'non-comparable' then? I guess if one goes back to the wiki page:

Any point along the blue curve is 'Pareto optimal' because it doesn't say anything about the value between guns and butter, and once you hit that curve you can't improve one without leaving the other worse off.

I guess we both realize by now that this has nothing to do with progressive taxation then.

Maybe it's because we have a different idea of that taxation is for, and I certainly don't want to argue against a position you don't hold, so perhaps it would be a good idea for you to state what kind of tax system you support, and what kind of tax system you think would be Pareto Superior (if they aren't the same).

Right now I'd like to see a higher inflation, which means that we don't need more 'taxation' at all.

In the long run I think a mix of flat taxes on wealth (inflation) and progressive taxes on consumption are the way to go. I would eliminate any and all social engineering from the tax code.

Why? Is it based on some sort of principle, or do you think empirically it's an inefficient tool for the job?

I think it is disingenuous. If the government wants to forbid something it should use it's sovereign regulatory powers, not hide behind the taxing power. At the risk of wandering into jargon again, I'll note that I'd make an exception for clear cut cases of Pigovian taxes.

IANAE, but I think inflation is too hard to control with the granularity needed.

I'm not much a fan of consumption taxes, but I'm not against them. I feel like the point of an economy is to produce stuff for us to consume, so taxing the consumption (abstractly, without considering fiscal stuff) seemed a bit backwards. If it's a question of effects, I feel like one could argue consumption stuff can have greater unintended consequences than income taxes do.

My idea for a consumption tax is a bit unorthodox. I wouldn't actually tax at the point of sale, rather I'd have people pay taxes on a tax return that shows total dollars in minus total dollars to savings. The difference is consumption. The idea is that the savings are taxed via inflation, so between these two measures you capture everything.

As for inflation being hard to control, you aren't going to be able to get it down to a very specific number, but a band is doable, and I don't see why you need superfine granularity.

My idea for a consumption tax is a bit unorthodox. I wouldn't actually tax at the point of sale, rather I'd have people pay taxes on a tax return that shows total dollars in minus total dollars to savings. The difference is consumption. The idea is that the savings are taxed via inflation, so between these two measures you capture everything.

As for inflation being hard to control, you aren't going to be able to get it down to a very specific number, but a band is doable, and I don't see why you necessary need superfine granularity.

This is a bit outside my expertise, but wouldn't inflation also be strongly influenced by events, domestic and global, outside the control of the government? If so, they may have to dramatically change their monetary policies on a frequent basis just to stabilize within the 'preferred band' you speak of.

I guess it boils down to how 'stable' inflation is against the backdrop of things like oil embargoes, trade wars, housing bubbles, and so on. Could you even craft a reasonable and forward looking policy that allows steady government funding of various projects for periods of greater than a year or two?

Inflation is NOT a tax. One can call it that, but one would be wrong. It doesn't have the same effects on the population, it doesn't generate the same revenue for public services, and it just doesn't substitute in any reasonable way for an actual tax.

Since you want spending to be counter-cyclical there is a bit of a natural rhythm to the whole thing. But yes Congress would have to be a bit more on its toes it if was in charge of monetary policy. It's my opinion that lack of responsibility helps lead to dysfunction and that the increasing offloading of its responsibilities to the executive and quasi-executive branches has been partially responsible for Congress' collapse as a functional body.

Inflation is NOT a tax. One can call it that, but one would be wrong. It doesn't have the same effects on the population, it doesn't generate the same revenue for public services, and it just doesn't substitute in any reasonable way for an actual tax.

It's a giant red herring.

A government with the ability to print money doesn't need revenue. Taxation is just another way of pulling money out of circulation - i.e. controlling inflation.

The system is tilted so that certain classes can pay much lower percentages.

The system is tilted so that certain kinds of personal income are subject to much less personal income tax than others. There are many types of income with less tax, but some of them are:

* The first $6,000 in earnings are a personal exemption and subject to no tax.* Dividends are subject to less tax because they've already been subject to corporate income tax at higher rates than personal income tax.* Long term (held more than one year) capital gains on securities, real estate, and other non-personal property are taxed at lower rates.* The first $500,000 of capital gains from the sale of a residence are subject to zero tax.* Pass-through income from S corporations and partnerships (e.g. law firms, resource MLPs) are sometimes treated as dividends and taxed at those lower rates. This is where the ~15% cited rates for hedge fund partners come from, if I'm not mistaken.

papadage wrote:

It makes the system stink of corruption and class advantage.

"Taxpayers who make money when selling a residence" isn't a social class yet that exemption is massive. If class advantage is defined by net economic transfers from the government then we have a very different definition of class advantage than you probably envisioned.

Why are consumption taxes a good idea? Because it's more politically palatable way to raise taxes than raising marginal rates or boosting the payroll tax cap?

Because consumption is easier to define and measure than income. It is also broader based, as some people consume from savings rather then income.

Quote:

Certainly regressive, so maybe that would appeal more to the "fair tax" people?

Consumption taxes need not be regressive. I outlined a scheme above whereby an arbitrary tax curve could be applied to consumption.

Quote:

US GDP is more dependent on consumption than the countries which have VATs. What would consumption taxes do to GDP growth, which of course ripples to tax receipts?

Prior to the latest crisis US households had a negative savings rate. The flipped to positive during the crisis, but now appears to be diminishing again as the economy recovers. I don't think a negative savings right leads to economic stability, so a nudge towards savings isn't a bad thing IMO. Particularly given upcoming demographic shifts.

A government with the ability to print money doesn't need revenue. Taxation is just another way of pulling money out of circulation - i.e. controlling inflation.

I don't see where you think the legitimacy of these simplistic blanket statements come from. No, taxation is not "just another way of pulling money out of circulation". It's a method of doing LOTS of things, but primarily revenue extraction, of which that thing is one consequence, and might be an intent in some circumstances.

And no, printing money is not the same as taxation, and the effects it has on the population is not the same as taxation, and comparing it to taxation at face value without paying heed to the differences is just poor economics and poor analysis. Furthermore, printing money is not the same as inflation, which is what you were referring to as taxation earlier. Printing money doesn't always lead to inflation, and inflation isn't always caused by printing money. They are two related, but quite distinct concepts, and you're just throwing them around in completely unjustified ways.

Thirdly, printing money as a revenue generation tool, while an option, suffers from myriad problems. To whatever extent it devalues the currency, that devaluation is felt just as equally by those for whom the marginal utility of a dollar is extremely high, as well as those for whom the marginal utility of a dollar is extremely low. Any inflation effects of money raised in this way is regressive in nature.

It's a poor substitute. It's not taxation. Stop handwaving around like it's somehow equivalent. It's not. It's a poorly thought, ill-conceived method of trying to get out of implementing an actual workable tax regime. Instead of talking about actually fixing up the mess that is the American system of funding a workable, non-corrupt government that's able to pursue the goals of maintaining the general social welfare, these are distractions and red-herrings being thrown about.

The majority of those are engineered to benefit those in the upper income classes disproportionately. The vast majority of taxpayers get a couple of bones thrown at them, and a person like Romney pays 15% on a vast fortune.

The politicians who want to cut spending use the deficit as a bludgeon to force their way and give them political cover to push to cut spending. Fixing the gap between revenue and expense will weaken this weapon considerably thus removing political cover from the austerity viewpoint.

That sounds like a communication problem, not a tax problem.

In politics it is a pointless distinction.

Not true. Plenty of politicians have educated and lead the public rather than just accept their ignorance as a constraint.

Quote:

Also higher taxes on the rich prevents them from exponentially amassing power to corrupt the system to their ends.

Why not punish corruption rather than try and prevent it though the Rube Goldberg mechanism of trying to insure no one can afford to do it?

Point 1: bullshit, the american people revel in their ignorance and politicians trying to educate especially on these types of hot button issues more often than not (far more often) are outed by people willing to exploit the public's fear and ignorance.

Point 2: Because the rich exerting influence via their money is not corruption in and of itself. Also, a properly progressive tax system is fighting the very corruption you are suggesting we fight. The tax rates have been influenced by big business and the rich for the last 30 years, this is the "corruption" you suggest we push back against. Realigning the tax rates to something more fair is exactly the remedy we need and is in no way a rube goldberg mechanism.

And no, printing money is not the same as taxation, and the effects it has on the population is not the same as taxation, and comparing it to taxation at face value without paying heed to the differences is just poor economics and poor analysis. Furthermore, printing money is not the same as inflation, which is what you were referring to as taxation earlier. Printing money doesn't always lead to inflation, and inflation isn't always caused by printing money. They are two related, but quite distinct concepts, and you're just throwing them around in completely unjustified ways.

Printing money at worst causes inflation. Where it doesn't cause inflation it is essentially free money, the government would be crazy not to utilize.

Quote:

Thirdly, printing money as a revenue generation tool, while an option, suffers from myriad problems. To whatever extent it devalues the currency, that devaluation is felt just as equally by those for whom the marginal utility of a dollar is extremely high, as well as those for whom the marginal utility of a dollar is extremely low. Any inflation effects of money raised in this way is regressive in nature.

It isn't a regressive measure because the net worth of the poor are generally negative and at a fixed or capped rate of interest, whereas the rich - almost by definition - have a great deal of wealth to be eroded through inflation. Inflation primarily hits wealth not income. It is one of the few things the government has any control over that hits wealth - the other being the estate tax. If you have other myriad objections, I'd like to hear them.

Quote:

It's a poor substitute. It's not taxation. Stop handwaving around like it's somehow equivalent. It's not. It's a poorly thought, ill-conceived method of trying to get out of implementing an actual workable tax regime. Instead of talking about actually fixing up the mess that is the American system of funding a workable, non-corrupt government that's able to pursue the goals of maintaining the general social welfare, these are distractions and red-herrings being thrown about.

The idea that taxes and spending are tightly coupled is intuitive but wrong. It is entirely understandable that government finance was based on this notion for thousands of years until we discovered that it was wrong, but now it is simply an unnecessary constraint on the policy space. We don't need a standalone workable tax regime we need a workable monetary policy regime of which taxation is simply one available tool.

Income inequality isn't just about justice; it's about freedom, too. One view of freedom minimises the state's role in an individual's life and maximises markets so that individuals are free to risk whatever they want to risk to be whatever they want to be. Another view sees the obligation of the state to hedge against the risk of the marketplace so that individuals can feel secure enough to be what they want to be.

Printing money at worst causes inflation. Where it doesn't cause inflation it is essentially free money, the government would be crazy not to utilize.

So you agree that you erroneously tried to refer to "inflation" as some surrogate of taxation? It just seems like you're ready at the drop of a pin to jump into the technical semantics and fine dicing of meanings when it comes to mathematical models that poorly represent the problem, but seem more cavalier about throwing around wildly different terms as if they're equivalent otherwise.

So you meant printing money, not inflation, yes?

Quote:

It isn't a regressive measure because the net worth of the poor are generally negative and at a fixed or capped rate of interest, whereas the rich - almost by definition - have a great deal of wealth to be eroded through inflation. Inflation primarily hits wealth not income. It is one of the few things the government has any control over that hits wealth - the other being the estate tax. If you have other myriad objections, I'd like to hear them.

Fixing the income inequality situation, which will tend to naturally happen when the opportunity inequality situation is fixed.. is the best method of organically addressing the wealth inequality situation, and it doesn't have to involve the government directly. Why are you advocating a more socialist, direct intervention in wealth distribution when it's not demonstrated that this is necessary?

Being rich is not in people's genes. Allow for the currently poor to have access to opportunity for mobility - through strong institutions, good social support, and appropriate welfare - and the poor will solve the rest of the problems on their own. This is why the modern landed classes so fervently support stripping government of the public institutions and supports that enable the poorer classes to access the opportunity it would take for them to move up. It would destroy the ridiculous "rich man's burden" myth the class has built up.

Fundamentally, these distractions are distractions. This pareto optimization bullshit - some grade-school, useless mathematical model bandied about as if it actually applies to anything relevant in this sense. This "inflation is taxation" bullshit. It's all flak. It's random, red-herring flak.

Quote:

We don't need a standalone workable tax regime we need a workable monetary policy regime of which taxation is simply one available tool.

Taxation is a tool? Really? Talk to Americans, and it seems like it's the one tool that should never be taken out of the toolbox. One should always use it less in the future than it is used now.

That seems to be the problem with the American policy mindset. Taxation is NOT considered a tool anymore. It's "the evil machinations of a socialist whatever blah blah big government spending blah blah starve the beast something something".

In the long run I think a mix of flat taxes on wealth (inflation) and progressive taxes on consumption are the way to go. I would eliminate any and all social engineering from the tax code.

Monetary inflation is only a flat tax on wealth held as cash. It's not a tax on the means of production or its output. Monetary inflation is an occult tax on non-invested fiat money. Without income tax on the output of the investments but only on consumption you're heavily incentivizing investments, which would seem to be politically unpalatable to those who believe that the means of production should only be held collectively (i.e. by government).

Faramir wrote:

My idea for a consumption tax is a bit unorthodox. I wouldn't actually tax at the point of sale, rather I'd have people pay taxes on a tax return that shows total dollars in minus total dollars to savings. The difference is consumption. The idea is that the savings are taxed via inflation, so between these two measures you capture everything.

This only works as intended if 'savings' excludes investments and if all savings are registered with governments.

Taxpayer Alice invests all of her remaining income into the family bun shop. Since that's not savings under Faramir's presumed system, she pays taxes on all of it. The investment is rewarded with a 5% rise in income, of which all the remainder is reinvested but taxed as before. Losing savings at a similar rate to high monetary inflation isn't appealing either but it's a lot less work. Eventually Alice gives up and moves to a state where investment isn't penalized so harshly, like Cuba.

Your non-cash-savings tax rate would have to be quite low to be superior to that of a healthy low inflation rate. More likely you didn't intend to exclude investments from the definition of 'savings' but then you're taxing investments very little if at all.

Printing money at worst causes inflation. Where it doesn't cause inflation it is essentially free money, the government would be crazy not to utilize.

So you agree that you erroneously tried to refer to "inflation" as some surrogate of taxation? It just seems like you're ready at the drop of a pin to jump into the technical semantics and fine dicing of meanings when it comes to mathematical models that poorly represent the problem, but seem more cavalier about throwing around wildly different terms as if they're equivalent otherwise.

So you meant printing money, not inflation, yes?

I don't know exactly where I stepped wrong in this conversation.

To be clear, this is what I think:Printing money is a means of paying for government programs. When such printing leads to inflation is tantamount to the traditional notion of a tax, because it funds government programs at the expense of reducing the purchasing power of the private sector.

Quote:

Fixing the income inequality situation, which will tend to naturally happen when the opportunity inequality situation is fixed.. is the best method of organically addressing the wealth inequality situation, and it doesn't have to involve the government directly. Why are you advocating a more socialist, direct intervention in wealth distribution when it's not demonstrated that this is necessary?

Being rich is not in people's genes. Allow for the currently poor to have access to opportunity for mobility - through strong institutions, good social support, and appropriate welfare - and the poor will solve the rest of the problems on their own. This is why the modern landed classes so fervently support stripping government of the public institutions and supports that enable the poorer classes to access the opportunity it would take for them to move up. It would destroy the ridiculous "rich man's burden" myth the class has built up.

I don't disagree with any of this, though I question how all these things will be accomplished without directly involving the government. Where I think I differ from OWS, and by extension its supporters here is no vis-a-vis programs for the poor, but rather the importance of programs for the middle class, and in particular the burning desire to see the gap between the middle class, especially the upper middle class, and the ultra-wealthy narrow. There is a great deal of discussion about how within the top 1% taxes are extremely regressive. That households making $500,000 pay a smaller percentage than those making $5,000,000. That's exactly the type of 'fairness' issue I don't care about.

Quote:

Quote:

We don't need a standalone workable tax regime we need a workable monetary policy regime of which taxation is simply one available tool.

Taxation is a tool? Really? Talk to Americans, and it seems like it's the one tool that should never be taken out of the toolbox. One should always use it less in the future than it is used now.

That seems to be the problem with the American policy mindset. Taxation is NOT considered a tool anymore. It's "the evil machinations of a socialist whatever blah blah big government spending blah blah starve the beast something something".

My idea for a consumption tax is a bit unorthodox. I wouldn't actually tax at the point of sale, rather I'd have people pay taxes on a tax return that shows total dollars in minus total dollars to savings. The difference is consumption. The idea is that the savings are taxed via inflation, so between these two measures you capture everything.

This only works as intended if 'savings' excludes investments and if all savings are registered with governments.

Taxpayer Alice invests all of her remaining income into the family bun shop. Since that's not savings under Faramir's presumed system, she pays taxes on all of it. The investment is rewarded with a 5% rise in income, of which all the remainder is reinvested but taxed as before. Losing savings at a similar rate to high monetary inflation isn't appealing either but it's a lot less work. Eventually Alice gives up and moves to a state where investment isn't penalized so harshly, like Cuba.

I don't follow. Why would savings exclude investments? Savings are being subtracted from income to determine consumption. More investment leads to less taxable consumption. Alice pays no tax on money spent on the bakery whereas she would pay tax if she had spent that money on a Ferrari. Eventually though Alice, or her kids, are going to want to start living the high life from all the work and investment put into the bakery. They are going to start pulling out cash to spend on themselves. Whether that cash comes out as salary, dividends or selling the business doesn't matter. Once they spend it, it's consumption and taxable.

Furthermore, printing money is not the same as inflation, which is what you were referring to as taxation earlier. Printing money doesn't always lead to inflation, and inflation isn't always caused by printing money. They are two related, but quite distinct concepts, and you're just throwing them around in completely unjustified ways.

Monetarists therefore draw clear distinction between monetary inflation and a general rise in prices.

Quote:

Thirdly, printing money as a revenue generation tool, while an option, suffers from myriad problems. To whatever extent it devalues the currency, that devaluation is felt just as equally by those for whom the marginal utility of a dollar is extremely high, as well as those for whom the marginal utility of a dollar is extremely low. Any inflation effects of money raised in this way is regressive in nature.

Yes, but some posters seem to feel that 'the disadvantaged classes' (their terminology) are synonymous with debtors and that debtors are helped by all inflation, even stable and expected inflation. This is clearly not the case. Many of the wealthy are highly leveraged and would be helped to a much greater extent by unexpected inflation, and those penalized would ironically be those with retirement funds that have done the lending.

When I was a kid, let's say 50 years ago, I was aware of an American trait that we generally referred to as "fair". Americans generally played, fought, argued, and did business with fairness as a predominating medium of exchange and intercourse. If I had to pay more, but you did, too, we could live with it and we'd agree to get along about it, even if there were fringe inequities.

Unless you were not white, or not a man. Segregation, which was still going strong in your rose-tinted '50 years ago' is pretty much the exact opposite of fair.

Taxation is a tool? Really? Talk to Americans, and it seems like it's the one tool that should never be taken out of the toolbox. One should always use it less in the future than it is used now.

That seems to be the problem with the American policy mindset. Taxation is NOT considered a tool anymore. It's "the evil machinations of a socialist whatever blah blah big government spending blah blah starve the beast something something".

Is this directed at me?

Insofar as it's an attempt at pointing out what seems to me, to be the root of the problem. It's not some imbalance in taxation through actual taxation vs. printing money. It's not a lack of reliance on simplistic math models. It's the fact that Americans have fundamentally no attachment to reality anymore about how government can be run and funded. It's not that somehow the system isn't able to use "printing money" as an income source. It knows how to do that. It's done that by the barrelful. Access to that tool hasn't fixed their problems - it just seems to have exacerbated them.

So what's the point of talking about these fancy new tools, this emperor's-new-economy models, when reality and recent history basically demonstrate that they have gone hand in hand with the mess the American economy finds itself in today. It's also gone hand in hand with a pathlogical perspective on taxation that calls for a policy of perpetual, constant reduction in collection, both from individuals and corporate entities.

So why the desperate and constant attempts to reframe the issue as ANYTHING that's even REMOTELY related to raising money via independent mechanisms? That's not the issue. Anybody who has been paying attention will realize that this is not the issue. So why are so many words being spilled over it?

So yes, in that sense, the comment is directed to you. I'm not accusing you of holding that position, but I am noting that you seem very reluctant to acknowledge, talk about, discuss, and dissect the fact that Americans adopting that position seems highly connected to the situation they find themselves in... much more relunctant in fact, than your willingness to talk about, discuss, and dissect, say, random theoretical abstractions.

I really don't see where you are coming from. Over the last five years, since the crisis began, the United States has had an expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that is the envy of the first world. Europe has gone off on a crazy budget balancing mission, and Japan only recently employed quantitative easing, something the US has been doing since almost day 1.

I think we are in a state of fundamental disagreement about whether or not the budget deficit is a problem here and now in the United States. I don't think there is, I think we are doing exactly the right thing (well maybe not exactly, but the outlines are correct) and it has helped the United States edge into recovery faster than any but nations heavily reliant on resource extraction (e.g. Canada, Australia).

Insisting that the budget is a problem, though in the context of raising taxes on the wealthy, plays right into the hands of those who would like to see budget cuts. You've accepted their framing, and if the last four years have taught me anything it is that the only kind of bill with revenue increases in it would be a compromise that would also include budget cuts. No thanks. Where we are now is not a problem. If and when it becomes one (which we would notice, among other ways, though increasing yields on US debt) then we can revisit the issue.

What's desperately needed is adult supervision of the financial sector, but instead we got the pathetic Dodd-Frank and not a single criminal prosecution. The FBI has time to investigate high end wine fraud, but not widespread mortgage fraud?

What's desperately needed is adult supervision of the financial sector, but instead we got the pathetic Dodd-Frank and not a single criminal prosecution. The FBI has time to investigate high end wine fraud, but not widespread mortgage fraud?

I probably disagree with you on some of the other stuff, but I'm 100% with you on this.

When I was a kid, let's say 50 years ago, I was aware of an American trait that we generally referred to as "fair". Americans generally played, fought, argued, and did business with fairness as a predominating medium of exchange and intercourse. If I had to pay more, but you did, too, we could live with it and we'd agree to get along about it, even if there were fringe inequities.

Unless you were not white, or not a man. Segregation, which was still going strong in your rose-tinted '50 years ago' is pretty much the exact opposite of fair.

Nothing rose-tinted, Keen. That was my experience. It wasn't universal, we all know. But I described a change in the country that I've seen. So now even white folks get hosed over by their own, in the not-so-kinder, not-so-gentler America. Now the country is equal opportunity tribally exclusive. How's that?

The country is better than that, but it's as though some long-repressed tribalism has reasserted itself, turning many people into inward-looking, self-focused, spoiled brats, for lack of a better term.

It seems to me that you hit a tipping point when roughly half the voters (net negative taxpayers, government employees and pensioners) unambiguously benefit from any increase in government spending.

The country is better than that, but it's as though some long-repressed tribalism has reasserted itself, turning many people into inward-looking, self-focused, spoiled brats, for lack of a better term.

It seems to me that you hit a tipping point when roughly half the voters (net negative taxpayers, government employees and pensioners) unambiguously benefit from any increase in government spending.

Very few people in this country are negative tax payers and those that do pay net negative taxes are our poorest.

Maybe you should look up the figures before you comment on this kind of thing.

He would have to be ignoring sales taxes, excise taxes and payroll taxes, which is a shitty way to try to classify lots of people as freeloaders. I guess only the income tax counts as theft, and not red light camera fines, or increasing speeding ticket fines.

He would have to be ignoring sales taxes, excise taxes and payroll taxes, which is a shitty way to try to classify lots of people as freeloaders. I guess only the income tax counts as theft, and not red light camera fines, or increasing speeding ticket fines.

I really don't see where you are coming from. Over the last five years, since the crisis began, the United States has had an expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that is the envy of the first world. Europe has gone off on a crazy budget balancing mission, and Japan only recently employed quantitative easing, something the US has been doing since almost day 1.

I think we are in a state of fundamental disagreement about whether or not the budget deficit is a problem here and now in the United States. I don't think there is, I think we are doing exactly the right thing (well maybe not exactly, but the outlines are correct) and it has helped the United States edge into recovery faster than any but nations heavily reliant on resource extraction (e.g. Canada, Australia).

This seems to be a fundamentally narrow-minded perspective - looking at monetary policy outside of any relevant context.

Due to this "free money", so to speak, that America can print on the back of the dollar, and its longstanding ability to borrow extensively on that basis as well.. they've evolved a spending policy that is completely unsustainable. They've receded in funding of social infrastructure, research, and constructive spending, and oriented their economy towards get-rich-quick schemes, things-that-explode, and using the things-that-explode in frivolous wars.

You can slice and dice the issue into tiny neat pieces (say, fiscal policy alone) and analyze them in isolation. But I don't see why one would do that unless they are interested in actively running away from a proper evaluation of the system as a whole.

The "free money" that's been available to America, that you seem to be so optimistic about, seems to me to have done little more than allow the development of a completely pathological perspective on spending and its relation to income, a pathological perspective on taxes, and compltely detached and fantasy notions of what and how government should operate. It's funded an all-American meth high for decades. As good as a meth-high may feel, I don't see how it's a good thing that it's been allowed to happen.

Quote:

Insisting that the budget is a problem, though in the context of raising taxes on the wealthy, plays right into the hands of those who would like to see budget cuts. You've accepted their framing, and if the last four years have taught me anything it is that the only kind of bill with revenue increases in it would be a compromise that would also include budget cuts. No thanks. Where we are now is not a problem. If and when it becomes one (which we would notice, among other ways, though increasing yields on US debt) then we can revisit the issue.

You can't talk in America about raising taxes PERIOD. You can't talk about increasing government revenue, or cleaning up its corruption, or bribery out of it. All those topics are "socialist". Furthermore, all taxes should get lower, all the time, for everybody, forever.

"TAXES ARE THE DEBIL. GOVERNMENT IS THE DEBIL (EXCEPT WHEN IT JAILS YOU, THEN ITS THE PROTECTOR)" is the mainstream mantra. And that's the full and the sum of it. There's nothing more. Holistically, it's a pathological and delusional national mindset. There's no relation, and no expectation of applicability, between the feverish imagination of the American public at large about policy, and what's actually accomplishable.

And this has nothing to do with running a reasonable welfare state, which is eminently possible for a non-neurotic country. It's possible to talk about that, but not when the patient has the perspective of a meth addict.

What's desperately needed is adult supervision of the financial sector, but instead we got the pathetic Dodd-Frank and not a single criminal prosecution. The FBI has time to investigate high end wine fraud, but not widespread mortgage fraud?